Determining the Greater Good and Having the Humility to Do So

I am fully aware that the greater good is obviously a point of view and this is a good time to reiterate that anything on this blog is just my humble opinion based on my own experiences and research, but the point I am trying to make is that transcenders always aim to help others, even if these others do not always realize this. Transcenders never intentionally hurt anyone based on their own personal desires like psychopathic pretenders but only always try to serve a greater good, whatever that may be. They have the best intentions and their actions reflect this. They only use violence when absolutely necessary, but when they employ it, they do so competently and resolutely without emotions to cloud their resolve. This leads to the main point in this discussion. Transcenders are the real-life superheroes while the pretenders are the supervillains. Transcenders are the Jedi, pretenders are the Sith. Both possess extraordinary insight into existence, both have transcended the Dancefloor of Existence and see the workings of the Universal Clockwork, both are well equipped to employ the Trinity of Control to achieve their goals. How they use this elevated position and power over the masses however, is vastly different as has been demonstrated above. But the similarities are there. They are the Yin and Yang of the Universal Clockwork. They both have the Force in them, but use the light and the dark side respectively. 

Continuing with the Star Wars analogy, I also believe that many transcenders occasionally feel tempted by the dark side. This is where the discussion gets really blurred and the “best” intentions and greater “good” become really fluid terms. Sometimes transcenders urged by the need and desire for change, might inadvertently be drawing on the dark side. For after all, although they tend to forget, even transcenders are still only human and can never fully see outside Plato’s cave or observe the intimate workings of the Universal Clockwork completely across time and space and can thus never make a fully informed decision of what exactly is the greater good. They will always be anchored to their physical location in time and space, and thus any decision that might seem indisputable at a certain time, might later prove to be horribly wrong and misguided. Like the great transcender character, Sherlock Holmes, constantly reminds his counterpart Watson, it is folly to make any conclusions without knowing all the facts. This is a great example of the humility possessed only by transcenders and not pretenders. The latter make conclusions and readily enacts them as they see fit, while the former only does so when called to action by necessity and always bases these decisions on the facts available at the time. The rest of the time they only theorize and make qualified suggestions, they never presume to have all the answers or be all powerful. (And neither do I by the way ;)) And given our position in the Universal Clockwork trapped in space and time, no one human will ever possess all answers. But basing decisions in experience, both personal and collective, rather than on instinct and presumption is a good start, and a crucial difference between transcenders and pretenders.

 

Accepting the Power of Sexuality but Protecting the Innocent

Even in western societies, issues such as sexuality and capital punishment are still under dispute. Here I think religion is the main culprit which is when it becomes a real problem as discussed earlier. Because honestly, who can argue against people who know they are homosexual to live and be happy together. People do not choose their sexuality. They can try and deny it all they want, but it is as much part of their nature as the need to eat and drink. Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom as well, it is not a human invention yet many human societies still shun and ban it. That is where the difficulty in terms of these instincts arises, when they clash with the laws of society. A few decades back homosexuality was generally considered as a mental disorder and treated with aversion therapy. This leads us back to determine what is normal. Who can make that judgment? My best bet is the collective wisdom of past and present transcenders and the laws of reason. In my own personal opinion, anything that happens between two consenting adults should be legal and within those confines I think everyone should be free to explore their own sexuality to the fullest extent without judgment or persecution. That to me seems perfectly reasonable. 

But when parties are unable to consent there should be laws in place for the protection of these, such as children and animals. So even though a pedophile does not choose to be a pedophile, he should still not be allowed to live out his desires, because these would consequentially mean hurting a defenseless child. Sucks to be the pedophile but in a modern society, basic human rights, especially those of the defenseless, should trump everything else. Same goes for psychopaths who get off on killing and hurting. In ancient and less progressed societies, due to the lack of human rights, these sexual deviants could act a lot more freely, but at our current level of evolution they need to be harnessed. How to deal with them then becomes the next problem to which again there is no easy answer. Especially in terms of capital punishment it is difficult to come to a definitive conclusion. But suffice it to say that society has from time to time brought pretenders or sexual predators to trial that showed little or no potential for recovery and in such cases, putting them down, might be the lesser evil. Here I am referring to people like Richard Ramirez, Charles Manson or Anders Breivik. These people are clearly pretenders or sociopathic psychopaths and fully aware of their actions. Instead of keeping them incarcerated for life with no recovery in mind, punishing them by taking their life might seem like doing the greater good. But once again, it is hard to appoint anyone to make that decision, and herein might lie a crucial difference between pretenders and transcenders.